Talk:Luis Posada Carriles/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've started the review of this article. I made some copyedits here Please review them to make sure I didn't change the meaning of the text! Images look good, references look good. Citations work. Why do you only list Bardach as a source when you have at least a dozen listed in your citations section? auntieruth (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Bardach's book is the only when I've used different sets of pages in different places, which makes the normal citation formatting basically impossible; the other sources, on the other hand, didn't need sfn formatting. I'm okay with changing it if you want me to, but I've used this sort of fix before, and I think it's a good balance between simple syntax and complete verifiability. Vanamonde (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I'm sorry I was unclear. I'm not questioning how you cited Bardach's book, only wondering why hers is the only one that is listed under sources, when you have so many others in a separate section under links.... wouldn't it be simpler to combined them in one section, or....? Also, please check changes I made, see if they are satisfactory... auntieruth (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow...the sources under "links" are not used in the article? Or are you referring to something else? The copyedits were mostly okay: I reverted just one [1] because there was a slight change in the meaning. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand that the sources under links are used int he articles. I wondered why you did not list them in the same section with Bardach? auntieruth (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean (maybe). My logic is roughly as follows: sources for which a single reference works (such as news articles) are in the the "references" section, and are formatted with <ref></ref> markup in the text; sources which requires multiple page ranges (books, in this case just one volume, the one by Bardach) are listed under "sources", and use {{sfn| markup in the text: and "external links" is used for useful further reading information that isn't already covered in the previous two sections. You are correct in pointing out that some of those were redundant with the sources, and I've removed one entry. I've left the GWU repositories there just because they are by far the largest source of information, and it strikes me that a little redundancy is okay to highlight those. In sum: nothing under External Links is there because it's a source in this article, though a couple are also used in this manner. I take it by the fact that you've passed this that you're satisfied with the rest of this article; thanks for the review. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)